Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men finds a woman to blame for Trayvon Martin’s death

Well, it took them a little while, but the folks at Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men have finally figured out an angle on the Trayvon Martin case. According to regular AVFM contributor August Løvenskiolds, the whole thing can be blamed on a woman — specifically, Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Trayvon Martin who was on the phone with him just before he was killed.

According to Løvenskiolds, who seems to know more about what happened that night than it is in fact possible for him to know,

During a post-trial interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Rachel Jeantel, the reluctant phone witness who was talking to Martin just before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, finally revealed that she had warned Martin that Zimmerman might be gay, or even, a gay rapist preparing to approach Martin.

This isn’t news; Jeantel said in her testimony that she told Martin she was afraid the man following him might be a rapist. But Løvenskiolds moves quickly from “sworn testim0ny” to “making shit up.”

Martin freaked out over the idea that Zimmerman might have sexual designs on him or his family, and this seems to have precipitated the attack on Zimmerman – which, of course, would make the attack a violation of Zimmerman’s human rights as a (purportedly) gay man, and make Jeantel the proxy instigator of the attack.

Yes, that’s right, the whole thing was “violence by proxy” instigated by an evil homophobic woman.

Would you like some armchair psychoanalysis to go with your unfounded speculation?

So, Trayvon Martin was killed in the act of gay-bashing (in Jeantel’s and his own minds, anyway). The fury of Martin’s sudden turnabout attack is now explicable (he had been avoiding being followed up to the point of the introduction of the gay rapist idea) and it indicates the degree of Martin’s revulsion that he went from flight to fight mode in so short a time.

And this of course makes it all All About The Menz Rights.

The men’s human rights issues related to a woman (Jeantel) being held blameless for using gay/rape threats to precipitate man-on-man violence ought to be obvious.

It’s always a woman’s fault, isn’t it?

Elsewhere in the post, Løvenskiolds seriously suggests that when a police dispatcher told Zimmerman that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin, that was Super Seekret Man Code for “we actually DO need you to follow him.” No, really.

Such negative suggestions are as clear to savvy men as this: “Honey, you don’t need to buy me roses for Valentine’s Day” – meaning, of course, “if you know what is good for you, I’d better get flowers AND chocolate AND jewelry AND a nice dinner AND…”

The fact that the dispatcher further expected Zimmerman to meet with officers – drafting Zimmerman into the militia, as it were – made it clear to Zimmerman that his continued pursuit of Martin was expected by the police as well.

The societal expectation of militia service by all able-bodied adult males is certainly a men’s human rights issue and an indication of inequality between the genders that needs to be redressed.

MRAs may not be good at much, but they’ve got mental gymnastics down to a science.

EDIT: I added a graf after the first quote from Løvenskiolds clarifying that Jeantel says she did in fact tell Martin that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist.

Comments

I saw a passing mention of oxytocin last night, in a documentary called The Secret Life of Dogs. It was about the phenomenon (which I’d guess everyone here knows) about the bonding between humans and dogs during petting – that hormone’s released in both. Dogs get the same lower heart rate and blood-pressure benefits from cuddling up with humans as humans do. It all goes back to bonding with their mothers (and the dog kissing your face goes back to licking mum’s muzzle to get her to regurgitate food). I also presume it works the same with kitties, because the benefits work the same way.

“Pretty much. I mean, Rome isn’t my strongest point (I mostly wanted to learn about Carthage, Egypt, and Judaea) but from what I’ve read, Cleopatra was pretty much desperately trying to juggle everything to keep Egypt out of Roman hands. Considering she had at least two siblings who wanted the throne, plus Roman intrigues, PLUS varying levels of support at home, I think she was pretty clever to have lasted so long. She was dealt a bad hand at the start, and she played well, but there’s only so much you can do in that kind of situation. Egypt was the bread basket of the ancient world; keeping the Romans away was pretty much a doomed enterprise.”

To me she came across as a very astute political operator and her situation was desperate enough that she had to use every weapon and talent she possessed just to stay in the game but to suggest that equally competant politicians like Julius and Marcus Antonius were mere “putty in her hands”, as SocialKenny maintains, would be selling both men seriously short as well as being misandrist as hell. They knew what they were doing. Trade with Egypt was important and if they could bring Egypt to heel, as it were, by controlling Cleopatra, obviously they would try. It would save them from having to take Egypt by force of arms and destroying what they wanted to posess.

Octavian didn’t play that way, though, and was more than happy to drag her back to Rome as part of his triumph and rather than be humiliated that way she (probably) killed herself, although probably not via an asp (cobra? Eeeew!), poison would more likely have been her choice.

One more thing about Cleopatra that gets ignored – her daughter Cleopatra Selene’s success. She was raised with Octavia’s children (her half-siblings, iirc) in Rome and became queen of Mauretania. It doesn’t seem to fit the usual narrative that Cleopatra should have surviving children who did well in their circumstances, does it?

My contribution to this thread is completely OT. Oxytocin is released during labour in order to cause contractions. We have it so well synthesized that we can give it to induce labour. And! We give it after baby’s been born in order to help contract the uterus to prevent postpartum haemorrhage.

(Let’s see if I can work this into the thread)

We are giving women who are delivering babies extra oxytocin in order to bond with people more (after they’ve been all hypergamous and slept with an Alpha and are now forcing their Beta husband to raise the Alpha’s child) in order to avoid their natural expenditure of oxytocin stores. Therefore, childbirth is misandry and we are totes facilitating female privilege by not forcing them to have no oxytocin left any more because they’ve used it up sleeping around.

Yeah, when I actually READ about Cleopatra, rather than the mythology she’s wrapped up in, i was fascinated. It’s one heck of a story! Also makes me want to learn more about Hatshepsut and Akhenaten.

RE: Kittehserf

I got to meet and speak with an author who wrote a series of fantasy books with Cleopatra’s daughter as the main character! I don’t remember if it was THAT daughter, per se (I know she had more than one child, don’t know how many made it to adulthood) but we had a cool conversation about Ptolemaic Egypt.

SocialKenny: And to be clearer, Caesar (I believe) was so drunk on Cleopatra that he allowed his empire to fall just because of this 1 hot ass: hot-black ass might I add

1: Caesar didn’t have an empire (Julius never did, they killed him to prevent it, and his son Octavius [known as Augustus] won the battle to gain power; and then killed his 1/2 brother, Cleopatra’s son, to secure it).

2: Cleopatra wasn’t black. She wasn’t even “egyptian”, since the Ptolemies were Alexandrian Greeks.

You are as clueless about history (which you could look up) as you are about men and women.

@LBT- She was of lighter complexion because of that admixture or races, but nevertheless, according to the way Americans do it (assuming you live in America), once you have any sort of black in you; you’re classified as black and now white. So either way, it is what it is. But you’re right; she wasn’t pure black, but the blackness in her gave her that exotic appeal which they weren’t used to seeing in Rome. Anyway, different story.

Go to town son, just try it. So far you’ve failed to understand how the Roman Empire came to be, how the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt came to fall (and from the evidence how they came to be), that N. Africa isn’t the same as Sub-Saharan Africa, the structure of Roman Armies (there is no way a foreign potentate can “get between” a legionary commander and his legions; this is why Generals were not allowed to bring their forces across the Rubicon, google, “alia iacta est” for the background on that).

You’ve also blown race relations in the US, in such a way as to imply you comprehend neither the scale of the country, the nature of its government, the variety of its polities, nor the differences between 50 years ago and today.

In short, you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper sack with a firehose.

Octavian didn’t play that way, though, and was more than happy to drag her back to Rome as part of his triumph and rather than be humiliated that way she (probably) killed herself, although probably not via an asp (cobra? Eeeew!), poison would more likely have been her choice.

She might have used an asp (not a cobra) they are a pretty mild way to go, better than a lot of the poisons of the time.

It’s apparently alea iacta est, score one for neither of us being able to spell in Latin? Mostly though this is me popping in to say I REALLY want to see Kenny try to school you on the Bible or religion, I’ll make the popcorn 🙂

neuroticbeagle — math, in which case he can make the popcorn while I go to town 🙂

Tag teaming the trolls is extra fun. I was going through an old thread with Crack Emcee in it and found him and I tag teaming the naïf last summer, I’d completely forgotten he existed, and am amazed he’s been around that long.

Argenti- the problem with math is that the only thing I’ll understand is that you are right and the troll is wrong. don’t get me wrong, that is entertaining, it’s just a little more entertaining when I understand the subject matter as well. Actually, I think my favorite is when the trolls get whacked with the power of the Furrinati or, in your case, the Fishinati.

The fishinati have taken over my brain, I just got done measuring the space for a DYI sump. One that’s probably going to end up with twice the capacity as the puffer tank (mm, massive overkill on the filtration! They’ll need it once they grow up)

Math…I try to make it make sense, but sometimes I just want to do this to the troll —

Heh, add me to the “will never understand maths” crew – “seldom understands arithmetic” for that matter (wish the term dyscalculia had been around when I was at school). I do the same as neuroticbeagle: assume you’re right and the trolls are wrong.

On Octavian (Augustus Caesar) – he was Julius’ son by posthumous adoption (ie. by testament). Descent-wise he was Julius’ great-nephew.

“Yeah, when I actually READ about Cleopatra, rather than the mythology she’s wrapped up in, i was fascinated. It’s one heck of a story! Also makes me want to learn more about Hatshepsut and Akhenaten”

That tends to be the way it works. The real story is generally so much more interesting that myths, movies and extrapolation. Hatshepsut is a case in point. Now there was an interesting woman! She controlled Egypt for decades and was co-pharaoh with two others. The second was Thothmes 3, who was also one of Egypt’s greatest pharaohs (there was a very interesting story about him and the sphinx) and she seems to have been in a long term relationship with her vizir, who started life as a stone mason! Apparently, there is some really interesting graffiti about them in the villages that housed the workers who built her tomb…

And Akhenaten…please look him up because he was fascinating. A political and religious revolutionary and his reign must have been totally terrifying for most Egyptians. He outlawed the old gods and replaced them with a really interesting and rather scary monotheism.

Seranvali – I’ve seen pics of the graffiti of Hatshepsut and Senmut (assuming it’s them). This is one – ” rel=”nofollow”>NSFW!. John Romer points out that the figure bending over seems to be male-proportioned but lack genitals; it’s like the artist was trying to convey the idea of Hatshepsut being unwomanly, or usurping a male position, or something.

Also on art, it seems the depictions of Akhenaten have zip to do with what he looked like, going on studies of the mummy thought to be his. He didn’t have any deformities; it was all down to artistic style, for whatever reason.

Totally with you on history being a helluva lot more interesting (and nuanced, of course) than the fiction based on it. Prime teeth-grinding example: the godawful turgid mess of character assassination that’s “The Three Musketeers” vs what the real people Dumas despised were actually like, and actually did.

“Caesar didn’t have an empire (Julius never did, they killed him to prevent it, and his son Octavius [known as Augustus] won the battle to gain power; and then killed his 1/2 brother, Cleopatra’s son, to secure it).”

True, Julius was instrumental in the downfall of the republic and Octavian put the final nail in its coffin, became Augustus and ruled Rome for decades. People may not have been completely happy about that but I guess they must have considered him preferable to the chaos that would have ensued if he’d been deposed. As I remember it Octavian was Julius’s great nephew, rather than his son but he was certainly his heir.

As for the mode of Cleopatra’s suicide, it’s almost impossible to be sure at this point. The asp was sometimes used if someone was considered important or deserving of a less humiliating death than public execution (though it would have been in Octavian’s interest to display her at his triumph and either executing her or enslaving her) the cobra was one of the symbols of Egyptian royalty so she might have considered it as an appropriate tool for her suicide, and she probably had access to opium and/or hemlock. Who knows?

And yes, SocialKenny has no idea what he’s talking about. That scenario seems far too sentimental and “romantic”. It sounds more like Shakespeare or the Burton/Taylor movie than the primary sources.

“Seranvali – I’ve seen pics of the graffiti of Hatshepsut and Senmut (assuming it’s them). This is one – NSFW!. John Romer points out that the figure bending over seems to be male-proportioned but lack genitals; it’s like the artist was trying to convey the idea of Hatshepsut being unwomanly, or usurping a male position, or something.”

That seems reasonable. It may have been something she may have actively encouraged. She seems to have worn the Pharaoh’s ceremonial beard on state occasions and she may also have assumed male dress as well. I’m sure some people considered her un feminine and assuming a male role.

“Also on art, it seems the depictions of Akhenaten have zip to do with what he looked like, going on studies of the mummy thought to be his. He didn’t have any deformities; it was all down to artistic style, for whatever reason.”

The statues of Akhenaten were are very odd and I’m left seriously wondering WTF they were all about. Some kind of disability caused by inbreeding would be one explanation. The Egyptians tended to present a very idealized view of their pharoahs so it’s odd that Akhenaten is presented that way but he was a very unusual man. Do you have a link to the report on his mummy? It sounds fascinating.

“Totally with you on history being a helluva lot more interesting (and nuanced, of course) than the fiction based on it. Prime teeth-grinding example: the godawful turgid mess of character assassination that’s “The Three Musketeers” vs what the real people Dumas despised were actually like, and actually did.”

I know what you mean. Dumas’ story.Is fun if you’re in the mood for it but it has nothing at all to do with history and I wish people wouldn’t take it seriously. Historical fiction is still fiction. I wonder sometimes about the ethics of that type of portrayal of real people.

The current MRM presence online, their only real presence, makes it hard to advocate for legitimate Men’s issues. Even if you self identify as a feminist, fighting for issues facing men causes people to assume you’re a subscriber to the AVfM conspiracy movement. I don’t know how anyone can take them seriously. I’ll admit that when I first looked into men’s issues I browsed their site. But after reading a few articles, no rational person could take them seriously.

I think there is a real need for a men’s Issues Movement, but not if it means associating with AFVM, or the men’s rights sub-reddit.

I know what you mean. Dumas’ story.Is fun if you’re in the mood for it but it has nothing at all to do with history and I wish people wouldn’t take it seriously. Historical fiction is still fiction. I wonder sometimes about the ethics of that type of portrayal of real people.

I’ve always thought Dumas the equivalent of the gutter press. He hated Louis. Used to be my dearest wish to give Dumas such a kick in the arse that he’d end up in orbit somewhere past Pluto. Fortunately since then I’ve learned that Louis doesn’t care two hoots about it and never did. If anything he finds it mildly amusing, though he’s sorry I spent years angry about it when it never hurt him. It hurt his earthly reputation like nothing else, though.

I think that sort of stuff is totally unethical. Granted people don’t know what the effect of their books will be, but someone like Dumas, writing with such malice – I’ve read enough of his comments elsewhere to have no real doubt that it was malicious – what a hateful bloody thing to do. Taking someone intelligent, complex, courageous, and turning them into a weak, cowardly creature – nothing ethical about that. I sometimes wonder if Mr “couldn’t keep it in his pants” Dumas despised Louis partly because he 1) did keep it in his pants and 2) was more attracted to men than women in his earthly days. /justmysnark

TTM is like Shakespeare’s “history” plays without being well-written and without the political pressure to create them. The real MacBeth, f’rinst, reigned seventeen years after taking the throne in battle – young Duncan invaded his territory – held power securely enough to be able to go on pilgrimage to Rome. He was killed in battle (or died soon after of his wounds) when Malcolm III invaded, but he was, albeit briefly, succeeded by his stepson Lulach. He was the son of the famous “Lady MacBeth,” Gruoch, whose claim to the throne was stronger than any of the male candidates (primogeniture was not a thing in Scotland then, iirc).

Much more interesting than Shakespeare’s play, even if Jon Finch did look rather luscious playing him in Polanski’s film.

Okay, so I didn’t read the last two pages of this comment thread, and I’m also late to the party, but I’ve been given enough to think about that I should comment before I forget my train of thought.

So, we know that the fear of rape is pretty pervasive amongst women, as well as teen girls. However, when I was growing up – and I’m sure the prevalence of this differs from area to area – we did understand that if a boy was young enough, child molesters might still come after him. Now, fourteen would be the high end of “young enough”, but still within the age range. Certainly my male peers growing up didn’t seem to worry about rape as often as we girls did, but it was there. Also, we were young adolescents, and yes we did harbor some pretty homophobic beliefs, even though we (most of us) didn’t outright hate homosexuals. I don’t think it’s that we believed homosexual men were more likely to harm children, but more that heterosexual men were for girls to watch out for, whereas boys should watch out for homosexual men. Given the still-pervasive cultural narrative that rape is about unsatisfied sexual desire, it just seemed to make sense.
So firstly, we know Jeantle warned Trayvon that Zimmerman was a rapist, which makes sense to me, given Trayvon’s age. Having come across the allegation against Zimmerman of molestation, I think it makes even more sense for Jeantle to have believed it (since the allegation for all I know, and for all she knew, is true). In fact, I would say that if you’re aware of someone having molested a person, and that someone is now following your friend, regardless of your friend’s gender, you might indeed assume said alleged molester is going to do the same to your friend.
That brings me to the next part. Did Jeantle actually say that George Zimmerman was gay? She may well have, for reasons I explained above, but from what’s been in the comments and in David’s post, all she did was warn Trayvon that Zimmerman was a rapist. While I’ve already stated that adolescents (due of course to the culture they live in, and adults around them who believe such things) often certainly have homophobic beliefs, it doesn’t mean that Jeantle’s warning means she did. For all that I’m aware, Jeantle could have known that rape is about power and not sexual desire, which would mean she knew sexual orientation has fuck all to do with it. So it thus follows that her saying Zimmerman was a rapist does not necessarily mean she thought he was gay. Now, maybe she did say and think that he was gay – which really wouldn’t be surprising and it would be awful if she thought that – but as others have said, that’s not the reason Trayvon Martin is dead.

Regarding the Valentine’s thing, I seriously don’t expect gifts. If I happen to have a significant other, then I definitely want his company that day, but I don’t require gifts. Gifts cost money which a lot of people don’t have much of, so that’s why I’d say, “You don’t have to get me anything.” That said, I certainly do appreciate it. My last boyfriend on our third date presented me with a potted mini rose, a bottle of ice wine, a card full of pokemon puns, and home made cookies. It was only then that I remembered it happened to be Valentine’s Day, and I was quite charmed, not only by the gifts, but that they all appealed to my likes. But that’s not something I’ve ever expected of anyone.

Regarding depictions of Akhenaten, well, he was an unusual ruler. Perhaps he attempted to institute artistic changes as well? And I’d also heard Hatshepsut wore the male beard and ceremonial clothing. It’s all really interesting. Can anyone recommend certain books about them? Something like that, it’s so hard to decide where to start…

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.